Talk:Alleged Bush-Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked


 * You may also want to also read the twin article to this on Wikipedia for further details.


 * Archive 1 (Initial, Title, Comment, Problems with latest 'fix', for information purposes only, Discussion on Title, Suggestion of a more objective title, NPOV, changes, Disruptive Behaviour):


 * Archive 2 (Change title and publish, changes again, Seems like a consensus, allege vs. suggest/indicate/imply, Daily Mirror a reputable source ?, Sabotage):

Page Protection dispute
(Background information: MrMiscellanious originally protected this page for edit-war reasons. As noted below, Deprifry reverted this, and then Messedrocker added protection to the page again. The protection has since removed from the article.)
 * I've unprotected the article because there is no basis in policy for this action. Looking at the history this can hardly be called an edit war. Secondly, the protection policy also clearly prohibits admins currently involved in a dispute from applying a protection. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope you review your actions, the history, and the comments left on this page to revert your decision. This article is in need of a temporary protection, and things need to be sorted out here, on the talk page first.  -MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Deprifry seems correct here. I find one inappropriate republication by Neutralizer, which was not repeated after your re-depublication.  Your only talk page contribution following depublication no. 1 talked about not assuming sources were authentic. As best as I can tell, the general consensus was that the authenticity issue had been adequately handled, notably by making "unverified" the 2nd word of the artile.  :)  I'm not sure what more you could want here.  Nyarlathotep 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose if you don't believe there is any wars going on on this page, then I will not argue with you. However, this page feels like a grand breeding ground for high levels of Wikinews controversy, so I feel like we should wait until any and all arguments relating to the page's content are solved. If you wish to pass off my actions as illegitimate, then by all means revert my page protection. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time an energy on this article, I would like to hear an *explanation* for your lock. Please detail what and whose editing practices warrent your decision to employ the block. Your "feelings" are not a good enough *reason* for your actions. Reducing this to "you believe" and "I feel" does not seem appropriate here, there are too many people impacted. --vonbergm 02:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As you wish, some names. MrMiscellanious was interested to a page protection, which was reverted. I agreed to the protection, and as a neutral party to the dispute, I made it so. Apparently, that's all I can provide you. Since your request can't be satisfied, I taken to the liberty of unprotecting the article. I just wanted to prevent Hell from rising over. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the honest explanation. And thanks for lifting the lock. --vonbergm 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition, I would like for some users to see it from my perspective. When you have a group of three or so editors who revert every and all of your edits, and you try to make contact with them on the talk page (as it shows), a "vote" is mysteriously taken and then the revert comes up with the comment of the following: "consensus is to publish".  I want everyone to realize that consensus doesn't replace policy, and it never will.  Consensus can be made to amend or edit the policy in community-backed changes, but it never is used for exemption from policy.  As long as an editor has a valid claim ("actionable objection"), the notice should be taken seriously.  To be quite honest with you, I wanted to have the dispute finished as fast as I could, so as a protection to all users - the discussion continued on this talk page and did not result in an edit war that was absolutely guaranteed to happen had it been left unprotected.  Therefore, as the protection policy states, a temporary padlock was allowable and is actually recommended to avoid an edit war.  There's my reasoning.  And I thank Messedrocker for addressing my concern as a third party.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This might be your point of view. However, mine is quite different. Some of your edits were discussed and left in, for example the emphasis on the documents being "unverified". If you look for "revets", i.e. edits that returned parts of the article to one own's last version, then I believe that you are the guilty one here. (Check the record if you feel the need.) No "vote" was ever taken, although you are right in the characterization that you were alone in your opinion among the active editors. Some of your objections were not "actionable" but vague and unspecific. Even when an effort was made to guess the true nature of your objections and address them (by e.g. providing you with specific references), you were not satisfied and simply insisted on having objections. The concerns you had were all addressed before you locked the page. I even gave you the links to the specific quotes you asked for on the discussion page. You know that it is against the policy to protect the page when you are actively involved in a dispute. (I hope this is not an "abuse of admin powers".) If you are serious about ending a dispute and truely believe that protecting the page is the only way to prevent an edit war (I don't think that this was the case, maybe you were agraid of getting close to 3RR....), try to find an administrator that is agreeable to all sides to mediate and take the apporpriate actions. --vonbergm 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A fair warning to Mrmiscellanious.

It is obvious that you abused your administrator power. As you say there was no editwar at the time. Me and other editors did not engage in what could be a tagwar that you may have started by your way of editing and depublishing. I argued and showed patience because there was a editingprocess and discussion on talk. The article was put to develop two times by you and was republished after 14 hours editing and compromising. You unpublish it again and locked it. Now this was to initiate a "war" as seen on this page. And as above talk condescending about "a group of three or so editors" as I was a part of is a insult. This insident alone is enough for me to ask for your deadministration. But I only warn you this time. You really must change your attitude immediately and if you understand the gravity of this you really watch your behavior and act like a good administrator kept apart from your role as a editor that i might complain little about but it is another thing that is solved on talkpages each time durin the editingprocess. So be warned, the least step close to missusing your administrational power again will result that I use my right to ask for your administratorstatus to be revoced. With hope of future respectfull and constructive co-operation on wikinews project.International 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The locking
Who is now resposible for the locking of the article?International 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it is messedrocker Neutralizer 23:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be done now?
As this article is protected, there should be discussion as to what needs to be done to get the article unprotected and publishable. What are the current concerns about the article? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * . --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to summarize the actionable objections here so newcomers to this discussion don't have to read the whole page? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Quote" section is all I'm concerned about right now. But I believe others have issues with the credibility of some of the sources... (I won't comment on that).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The comments by Vonbergm & myself at the end of quote section summarize the requested alterations as we understand them, no one has objedcted to this interpretation. The Mirror's credibility only came up later, meaning it has no bearing on the lock.  Plus, there was an almost immediate consensus to follow the suggestions of StuRat & myself: mention they are a tabloid which has faked photos in the past. Nyarlathotep 00:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I found one quote here on the PBS website: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has called the network "a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda and a vehicle of anti-American propaganda." So that quote can be sourced at least to that website and attributed to the SecDef.

The other quote can be attributed to Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz at this site: ''Wolfowitz: Well, what I'm complaining of are false reporting and very biased reporting that has the effect of inciting violence against our troops, and these governments should stop and realize that this is not a game; that they are endangering the lives of American troops, and, you know, they have a way, when they want to cover somebody favorably, including Saddam Hussein in the old days, of slanting the news incredibly. Well, a little bit of honesty would help and the lack of -- and ending this incitement would be what we'd like to see.''

If the quotes were properly attributed and sourced, would that take care of the "quotes" problem? --Chiacomo (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It would. Thank you.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So these quotes were the problem? For these I named to two sources and provided links for youexplicitly in the discussion on several occasions above. Also, I argued against detailing the names and sources within the text as this is just background information and diverts from the main story and asked you to give *reasons* why you think it is important to include the names and sources within the article text. You never responded to that. --vonbergm 00:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

invitation
News never end! Come and do some constructiv work. I think it shoud be fixt and published fast. And dont fuck this article up in disputes, please!International 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a brief summary of this development into the article last night (in the brief sweet period when constructive development was possible). There is also a Post article with a US senior diplomat making some comments that seem to acknowledge the basic thrust of the allegations. The diplomat plays the statements down as the type of joke typical for Bush. You might want to add that info over there as this article is not going anywhere. --vonbergm 00:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected article interim modification suggestions
As far as grammar, the use of 'sources' in "The sources of the leak, David Keogh, 49, a UK civil servant ..." is incorrect, it should be 'source' as only a single person's name is provided and the remainder "..." describes what he, singularly, has been accused of doing. Also, perhaps division into distinct sections for each position wherein each is appropriately qualified with the necessary cautions as to probable accuracy according to the source for each segment of information; that is, perhaps we should abolish the narrative form for the greater part and provide a series of summaries with the relevant qualifications given before each for the information contained within each particular section. The general narrative form itself seems the cause of complaints, that either qualifications made are not adequately assigned or not adequately stressed to indicate specific subjects within the current form, or that specific bits of information should or should not be covered within particular implied sections; the solution seems to me to be that we establish definitive sections and divide all material appropriately. At the least, that should let the resolution of this article's problematic aspects proceed more quickly at least as far as identification of problematic areas.

Also, what is the method of dividing this page? There is a warning regarding its present length. 68.210.70.211 02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess diverting the page somehow defies the concept of locking it. But good idea anyway, finally something constructive! What you suggest might work. I suggest the following additional changes.


 * Add a short statement to the extend that the US characterized the previous bombings of al-Jazeera office and consequent deth of a correspondent as accidental.
 * Add a quote from a senior US diplomat from today's Post article:


 * In Washington, a senior diplomat said the Bush remark as recounted in the newspaper "sounds like one of the president's one-liners that is meant as a joke." But, the diplomat said, "it was foolish for someone to write it down, and now it will be a story for days."


 * This on one hand relativises the alleged statement (what a topic to joke about, if this really was a joke!) and implicitely confirms some of alleged content of the conversation by commenting on the "act of writing it down".


 * No worse than Reagan's joke: "I've just outlawed the Soviet Union...we start bombing in 5 minutes." StuRat 03:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got a handful of jokes from Carter and JFK that are much worse than both of them. Then again, attribute either of them with some of them and some people will get a little touchy.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreliable sources = U.S/UK Governments
Haven't the US and UK governments proven to be the 2 most fraudulent,POV and unreliable sources of information on the planet over the past 4 years? Does that mean we will not report what they have to say? Are we going to be qualifying everything that comes out of the Whitehouse as being "from the Whitehouse, an unreliable source of information" ? Can we please step back and see the utter hypocrisies inherent in taking the statements of these 2 governments at face value and cranking up the "prove it" threshold for any contrary reports? Neutralizer 03:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no point in getting unreasonable just because you perceive other to be, rightly or not. Your argument is in principle correct. Any statement based on classified information is "unverified" or even "unverifiable" by the public. There are plenty of examples of facually misleading at best if not factually wrong statements made by government officials that were "unvified". Watching out for this is a good idea, but we need to keep the proportions right. The Daily Mirror does not have a very good record either, so being cautions is good and necessary. A good idea to keep an eye on this. Your statement is a little strong though... --vonbergm 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly would consider info about Iraq from either government to be unreliable. However, unlike the Daily Mirror, which isn't known worldwide, the reputations of those two governments are quite widely known, eliminating the need to explain how unreliable they are. StuRat 03:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I can agree with that assessment. The Daily Mirror comes with a wikilink explaining its reputation. The US government may have that reputation outside of the US, but not in the US. (Funny how that works), there are plenty of people that will disagree with your assessment on the US reputation, but not many that will when it comes to The Daily Mirror. --vonbergm 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * At any rate, people around the world have enough info on statements by the White House and Downing Street to make their own decisions as to the reliability of info from those sources, while those outside of England are not likely to know enough to make a decision on the Mirror, unless we provide it. I doubt if many of the readers will follow all the links in an article as that would make it take days to read. StuRat 03:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, because I refuse to allow you to publish stories that could be dead wrong. Wikinews doesn't exist to come here to present POV or bias in our articles - your outburst of statements about both governments on this page makes me think that you should try to avoid articles of this nature, as you have been asked continually by other users to do so.  And no, Wikinews will NEVER "step back" and "crank up" anything - your request was to say, "they're wrong all the time!  Let's write smut about them!"  That is not what Wikinews is for.  That is not what Wikinews will become.  May I suggest you take a look at Indymedia instead?  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * MrM; please re-read. You are making gross,inaccurate and misleading statements about what I actually said above. Would it be reasonable to qualify every news item out of the White house by saying "this Whitehouse has, in the past, given out false information; such as the WMD scare"...I say "no" it would not be reasonable. That is my point.Your angry personal attack is uncalled for and unacceptable as you were not addressed at all in my comment. Neutralizer 14:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * MrM, to whom are you referring? -Edbrown05 04:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That was to Neutralizer.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Something is obviously happening here. No news is not good news. Something ain't happenin' here. -Edbrown05 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This a collaborative model; not a dictatorial model
There is nothing in policy allowing for 1 editor to consistently block/impede articles about particular subject matter; especially without putting out any effort to "fix" the article. This is a collaborative project and to act as a "teacher" forcing "students" back to work on their essays(with a few suggestions for how to maybe satisfy the teacher) until they get it to read the way the teacher wants is not a sensible model for a collaborative project. The other concern is that if individual editors are allowed to get away with this type of behavior long enough, then eventually we will have a model where articles have to get a particular "boss"'s ok before being published. With this particular article, we have already reached that point. MrM should take his anger and unilateral approach to a blog where it belongs (response to indymedia slurr above). Neutralizer 14:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

changes
I made some changes and added some information to keep it up to date. I hope I addressed all remaining concerns. Please let me know if there are any actionable objections left. --vonbergm 03:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, a somewhat minor one. If we can avoid using slashes "/", it'd be best.  Mediawiki splits slashes into quasi-directories (in essence, this article would be Alleged Bush -> Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked).  Not sure how you guys want to do it, so I'll leave it up to suggestions below.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone else can fix the title, I am not up for another discussion on this. If I had to do it I would just replace the "/" by a "-", but that does not make the title any better. In the meantime, I guess it is ok to publish as it is. So whoever feels brave, turn the flags and think about the title! --vonbergm 04:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I should not be so fast I guess, there is a minor issue with the new edits. The information regarding the doctored pictures published by the Mirror is slightly incorrect. These were not pretending to be "Abu-Graib" pictures. Whoever put this in, please correct. --vonbergm 04:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Have already corrected it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Archives
Are there any objections to the current archives? Have I made any mistakes in their creation? 68.210.70.211 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Tough question
I want us to be consistent in our casing of "Al-Jazeera". So, how should we write it? "al-Jazeera", "al Jazeera", "Al-Jazeera", "Al Jazeera"? --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Pick one. Its all you. --vonbergm 05:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The english Aljazeera page has it as Aljazeera --Cspurrier 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen the "al" as lowercase, so I vote for al-Jazeera. StuRat 05:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ditto StuRat... been buggin' me for a while too... al-Jazeera, but whatever is decided. -Edbrown05 05:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To add to the confusion: Wikipedia has it as "Al Jazeera" --vonbergm 05:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, in Wikipedia, all entries must start with uppercase, they have no choice. StuRat 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts
Wikinews "edit wars" almost always seem to be over the npov and publish tags. There should be a good reason for this, being "done" is not a wiki concept. Wikipedia doesn't remove an article from its search for npov, it just won't give it FA status. I would suggest the following policy changes: Wikipedians often agree to disagree about the NPOV status of an article for an extended period of time, although such truces eventually come to an end once an obstanant editor leaves, and the article will be edited into a new state which participants feel is NPOV. This slow flexible policy is actually essential in keeping controversial content in wikipedia. Wikinews needs a slower policy like this. Sure, many articles will disapear into the sands of time with NPOV still tatued on their forehead, but wikistreess will go way down, as people will nolonger feel like they are fighting for the survival of their article. Nyarlathotep 10:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Decouple publication from absolute NPOV status: seriously POV articles would not be published, or could even be deleted, but minor infractions would simply be tagged under current tagging rules.  all published articles would apppear in the list of articles, but tagged ones could apppear in a smaller font size.
 * Make "completenss" the main criteria for publication, i.e. no stubs!
 * I agree with this suggestion Neutralizer 14:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. We shoul also consider using the [w:WP:PWDS pure wiki deletion system], but I'm not going to advocate for that one.

Ready for publishing?
Have the editors reached a consensus? I say "yes", all concerns, actionable or not, have been sufficiently addressed and dealt with. Neutralizer 15:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts
I don't mean to defend the bombing here, but its important to remember that many such things are intentional, and relatively normal in the realm of international politics. Nations get away with what they can get away with. Today, the Israeli sinking of a U.S. spy ship is generally viewed as intentional, as is the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy, in both cases all nations just agree to shut up about it and let the public forget. And such activities are certainly not restricted to nations who piss people off, its just wont be a bombing if your not at war in the first place. Its all really a general artifact of power & decission making processes.

There was this great story about a guy who made a living putting bagels in buisnesses with a note to please leave money for them. His rate of payment from floors with ordinary people was pretty good, but his rate of payment on floors with executives went way down. Same sort of thought processes really. - Nyarlathotep 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to check the bagel thing it is in freaconomics ( really good book) Dolive21 12:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Deserves Lead
With all the work that went into this; it deserves to be Lead article; so done. Neutralizer 22:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say "featured", as it needs an update (and this article is quasi-old). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)